set_collection_visibility

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description confirms the setter action and matches the idempotentHint annotation, with no contradiction. However, it doesn't disclose details like the effect of null parameters (e.g., leaving one channel unchanged) or error behavior if the collection does not exist. The idempotent annotation covers one aspect, but other behaviors remain implicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. It contains no wasted words and conveys the essential purpose efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple tool with three parameters and an output schema. The description captures the core purpose and the two visibility contexts, but omits nuances like null behavior and what the `name` refers to. Despite that, it remains complete enough for a straightforward setter in the given context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does clarify that the boolean parameters correspond to viewport and render, but it doesn't explain the `name` parameter or the null semantics. This is partial compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (set) and the resource (collection visibility) along with the specific scope (viewport and/or render). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_viewport_shading or toggle_modifier_visibility by focusing on collection-level visibility rather than other visibility settings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when adjusting collection visibility) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so the context is clear but not fully explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.